As for the foul, there was lots of poor calls or no calls all night. The most obvious no call was the double dribble out in front of God and Country that was not called which lead to a basket for Stanford....that no call in my thought was the worst call or no call for the game.

i feel dumb for asking...but what does he mean a 'stronger call'?

does that mean a no call (stronger for the ref), or a stronger foul before it gets called?

I just love McCabe's other comment in that same interview:

"McCabe was at the game and said it was a judgment call, and it can't be reversed. He said that Brill and the rest of the crew -- Bobby Mcroy and Milt Stowe -- worked hard and did a good job of keeping the big men (UCLA's Kevin Love and Stanford's Brook Lopez) on the court late in the game."

Isn't it their job to just call the game as it is? I'm pretty sure it's not their job to "[keep] the big men on the court..."

He was at the game and didn't have the benefit of television replays and commentary, but this was a very poorly officiated game start-to-finish, and to not address that is unfair, regardless of whether or not that one call was blown.

Gubon,
Not sure what other interview you're talking about. I called him and spoke to him individually.

Sorry, that was from Andy Katz. Since so much of it was the same, I assumed it was a conference call with a bunch of reporters...

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3281954&name=katz_andy

In lieu of the above:

Next time, Collison should just go up to Hill and chuck a fastball into his face!!!

Or would McCabe still side with the non-UCLA team???

Whatever... GOOOOOO BRUINS!

gubon13-

Reading that article requires an Insider subscription. On an ad-supported site, I refuse to pay. Can you give us a summary of what Katz himself had to say?

Thanks.

Hopefully he lost just as mcuh sleep over the non-call on the charge a few moments before.

Here's the summary...

Katz doesn't take a side, simply stating that the call hurt Stanford. He noted that there was contact on the hip, but questioned if it was enough to warrant a foul that late in a game.

He doesn't mention the possible charge five seconds prior.

I don't think it would be appropriate to post the ESPN article here on Brian's blog, but let's just say you're one click away from the article... *Hint, Hint...*

I don't understand how this foul/non-foul call supposedly "won the game" for UCLA or "decided" the game (I hope Collison gets some credit here at the end of the day for making the clutch free throws). Isn't it a given that officiating can be inconsistent thru out a game? So good teams have to make the plays despite the calls (good or bad). I can also understand Stanford's pain here, but they had another 5 minutes of overtime to make a statement. Overtime decided the game in my opinion, so UCLA deserved to win.

Who is this McCabe clown? We wonder why our referees aren't very good - look who is in charge. Would like to see a "stronger call" to close out the game? Like maybe the charge where Love was buried right before that, which was NOT called. This is the same stooge who said that UW's throw to Aboya's face was legal. Who is this clown?

By the way, it doesn't matter if the block is clean if there is also contact with the body, and there there was contact with Collison's forearm.

"Stonger call" means there should have been a more obvious foul to have been called at the end of a game. It is true in a basketball game there are many bad calls because of the nature of the beast (too much fast action for the human eye to consistently track), but the end-of-the-game calls (regualtion) usually require something quite obvious, which the Collison foul was not.

The Love contact was not at the end of the game (regulation), and it was close to being a blocking call on Love which could have resulted in a 3-point Stanford play and probably a Cardinal victory.

ONLYTHENON-TRUTH-

The Love contact was not at the end of the game (regulation), and it was close to being a blocking call on Love which could have resulted in a 3-point Stanford play and probably a Cardinal victory.

What game were you watching? Oh wait, you're a TROJAN on a UCLA blog, but you're so obssessed with us that you just can't stay away.

The Love contact wasn't at the end of regulation?????!!!!!! I repeat: What game were you watching? The non-call when Hill plowed into Love was the play IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the play resulting in the controversial call. It happened, oh, maybe 5 seconds earlier. So you don't consider about 7 seconds remaining to be "at the end of regulation"????!!!

And as for the non-call itself, it wasn't within a parsec of a close call. Love was practically putting down roots he'd been there so long! Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but the fact is, it wasn't close. It wasn't even CLOSE to close.

I think I hear Scott Wolf calling you....

Brian,

70% of the questionable calls in the game favored Stanford. Why are you and other members of the press obsessing over one of the few that may have favored UCLA?

BRIAN, QUESTION FOR YOU:

A friend of mine who is for some reason reluctant to register here, though he does read it, asked me to ask you the following:

------------------------------------------
Why doesn't Brian Dohn ask McCabe about Hill's shot just 5 seconds earlier?

He travelled, than he charged into Love. They had two reasons to take that shot away, and didn't. That gave Stanford two points they shouldn't have in the last eight seconds to go ahead of us. It is to our credit that we were able to come back. Dohn's question made it look like the Hill foul on Collison was the only question in the last minute. And McCabe's answer made it look like the refs gave the game to us. That's just utter hogwash.
------------------------------------------

Thanks, Brian.

Does McCabe want the same strong call in the situation that gave Brook Lopez 2 freethrows to BEAT Arizona in REGULATION? we all know how credible McCabe is anyways.

Got to love the raw energy (and lack of objectivity) of sports fans. Fortunately, this is not the Israeli-Palestine conflict, so it is all harmless.

Calls or no calls aside, it was a pretty amazing victory by the westwood boys, and one we will all remember, at least until the next game.

That said, who cares about conference championships? It is national championships that people recall. SC football has won 6 conference championships in a row, but it is only its 2 national championships that will go down in history.

And UCLA basketball has won 3 conference championships in a row, and no national championships. (P.S. they have won one, as in 1, in 34 years).

I would say SC has a better chance of winning the title this year than the Bruins.

Did you guys play yesterday? Was it on TV? Oops, looks like it wasn't even televised. Someone blew it big time, not televising the national championship contending USC Trojan basketball team.

Or maybe you mean USC WOMEN's basketball, or maybe football since you are bringing that up for no apparent reason.

Every time McCabe speaks, it is just utter nonsense. The end of a game shouldn't really be called any different than any other part of the game. Let's not forget this is the same fool that said Aboya intentionally put his face in the way of that beaming inbounds play @ UW. He seems about as anti-UCLA as Brian himself.

Surprise surprise, another opportunity for our 'local hometown' beatwriter to focus on only ONE side of the story, and of course, it's the side that is ANTI-UCLA. Classic.

No need to mention Stanford's charge the play before. No need to mention the numerous non-traveling calls, etc. No, of course the only reason why UCLA 'stole' the conference championship was b/c the wonderful pac-10 refs who just love our program so much handed us the trophy last night. It had nothing to do with stanford's utter collapse or our own grit and determination to claw back with smothering D and timely execution.

And of course, all the other teams vying for the national championship like UNC, duke, kansas, texas, memphis are SO much more athletic than UCLA, that we couldn't possibly have a chance at winning the title this year. Clearly, Brian watches EVERY SINGLE ucla game (b/c he is paid to do so), but I can pretty much guarantee that he does NOT watch every single game that memphis, kansas and unc play. So, like everyone else, he gets his 'professional' insight from watching espn highlights where they show all the amazing dunks and leaps that these teams put on display through the course of their victories. Forget about the fact that unc has gone through numerous OT victories against much less quality competition this year, or that kansas and of course memphis play in weaker conferences than the PAC-10.

Do you HONESTLY believe that Memphis would be 14-2 in the PAC-10 today??? they are barely getting through conference usa unscathed. We have 2, count them, 2 losses in the most difficult conference in the entire country, and yet Brian is so mesmerized by all those amazing sportscenter highlights of dozier dunking on some dude on some no name team in conference usa, that he still has them ranked higher than us in his poll.

Whatever Brian. You say you have no BIAS against UCLA; i say your track record of only pointing out the NEGATIVES vs. highlighting the positives shows that you clearly have some bias against UCLA. So since it doesn't sound like you'll be returning to rutgers anytime soon, i guess all UCLA will have to do is keep winning and bring home a championship this year. But even still, it probably won't be b/c of any atheleticism our team has (check out youtube and search for westbrook dunks), or Coach Howland's superb coaching which has single-handedly impacted how ALL the other teams in the conference play ball now, defense first.

Now that Coach Howland has RESTORED order to the basketball world and brought UCLA back to where we belong, at the top of the pac-10 conference for the third straight year, the anti-UCLA bias will only continue to grow. No one likes to see a single team 'dominating' a sport (granted we still need to win the championship this year, but 2 straight final fours, 3 straight pac 10 titles, #1 recruiting class in the country coming in next year), just as people want to see the yankees, patriots, and the other dominant teams in sports go down, the same will be for UCLA. Unfortunately, our own 'beat reporter' doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that as we go up, so does he in terms of readership/interest. That's easy to understand since Brian wasn't around to 'report' on lavin's teams play in empty arenas and tinker on the verge of utter irrelevance in the basketball world. Thankfully, those days are LONG behind us with Coach Howland at the helm for the indefinite future.

Oh, and gotta love those usc 'fans' coming here on a ucla board to talk up their programs... recruiting lil' romeo will really pay dividends next year, that's for sure. Are the SC boards that dead and boring that you have to come here to talk nonsense and get ragged on by a bunch of ucla fans? I'm out. GO BRUINS.

I would say SC has a better chance of winning the title this year than the Bruins.

Huh? You just lost all your credibility.

No one likes to see a single team 'dominating' a sport (granted we still need to win the championship this year, but 2 straight final fours, 3 straight pac 10 titles, #1 recruiting class in the country coming in next year), just as people want to see the yankees, patriots, and the other dominant teams in sports go down, the same will be for UCLA.

Excellent insight. Maybe you can take Brian's place. Or, at least, send him home along w/ his East Coast..., well, you know.

SUC has a better chance at winning the NIT title? I completely agree. The Bruins aren't even in the running for that distinct "honor".

Funny how the bruins are all defensive about their "victory." This is the reason a strong call is necessary at the end of a game, to avoid this controversy.

But now on to more important matters, the NCAAs. Despite all the bruins grumblings, SC has qualified, and is a team noone wants to play. SC played Kansas and Memphis to the wire, losing only because of inexperience early in the season. ucla was hard-pressed to split with the Trojans. And Stanford shot 27% (but granted, did win) in the first Troy enocunter.

Lost in the ucla-Stanford contest was how poor the bruins looked. They are playing badly at the wrong time of the year. Granted, they earned a top seed and will have little trouble getting to the Sweet 16. But they cannot shoot well enough to win a title.

Don't feed the troll!!!